Jump to content

Homura

Members
  • Posts

    5,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Homura

  1. You know what would've turned the tides in the UJP's favor?

    That \m/-GPA MDP.

    Too bad it didn't pass in the GPA... It needed something like one or two more votes. Heh.

    I've fought with the GPA before, and they mostly suck at war.

  2. I seriously hope your kidding. My nation is in no way hurting. I dont have wonders because i am purchasing improvments first and at the time was not concerned about Wonders. Look at my nation again friend, as of right now im saving for a wonder. Hints why im 3 days inactive. And since when am i blaming anything on me not having nukes? I never one said i wanted this or that to be changed so i can get a nuke.

    Go here http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...00#entry1146368 and trying reading my proposition. Even if it was met with acceptance i still wouldnt qualify for many more days. Also as far as the 75.15 percent efficiency....uhhh thats in no way considered terrible or even close. In fact it happens to be pre average. And once upon a time i had a efficiency of about 200 something. I didnt come here for politics in the beginning i came here for war. And such a bright young feller like yourself should understand that war dramatically stops growth. Im in the top 7% of war casualty's with most of them being on the offensive. Excuse me if you decided to avoid war and became the most perfect nation that there ever was. I really dont care what you think, the point is it needs to be changed. In fact its nearly the only thing that has not been changed or modified since CN started. Try reading the requirements on it. And many CN nations agree, yes even ones in the top 5%. If you dont like the idea good for you, but keep your insults to yourself because i really dont give a damn if you like my idea, me, or nukes.

    This not the place to argue this. The 5% limit was put in place intentially to keep the number of nuclear capable nations small and continues to serve that purpose. However, it is not an event in CN history per se, but a game mechanic.

  3. heh. CDS.

    also, for future reference, don't call it the UJPW. the abbreviation for the bloc is the UJP, and the war is the UJW.

    At least he didn't call the bloc TUP. God I hated that acronym and am glad that one didn't catch on.

  4. Well, as I stated, it is a possibility especially since those that actually know the chances of it happening are a rather small number but it still comes off as wishful thinking the way he put it.

    The problem is that conflicts tend to be kept very secret, in private leadership channels, and denied to the public. The only way they become public are information leaks or disputes over a topic in a public place. The Initiative denied that they were breaking up or had any conflicts pretty much until the day when everyone started leaving the bloc.

  5. I highly recommend attacking Mastab, just because he manages to turn everything into innuendo and deserves it.

    Or you could attack me if you're in range, although it won't be fun now that I don't have any nukes to attack you back with. I've been playing for almost two years now and still nobody's ever gone rogue on me.

  6. The NPO saw the defection of a number of senior leaders and the creation of an alliance designed specifically to destroy us, made up of former NPO members who have a knowledge of our internal workings and warfare strategies.

    Whether or not that was a significant amount of "hurt", it was hurt nonetheless, and it was a direct result of the issues with the NpO.

    I am not saying we did a favor for Polaris. I'm not saying that we were hurt more than they were. As I said, Koona said that, and I'm not going to contradict him. I think he can make that argument, but it's his argument and he can make it. What I am saying is that regardless of what happened, that's not what we're talking about here.

    B

    Are you talking about Vox Populi here? Because I wasn't aware that they were significant to Pacifica in the slightest, other than a little sanctioning masquerade a few months ago.

  7. Many of them are people who sign up then stop playing. There would be no point of having an applicant AA otherwise. We prefer to be in the current situation rather than sanctioned with many ghosts.

    I remember the days when TOOL was notorious for having a huge member count which was heavily ghosts, but it seems you guys have moved towards a more quality membership.

  8. ITT ex \m/e\m/bers complain about things that are long dead.

    for the most part there's actually good discourse in this thread which is a refreshing break from the norm, so its all good i guess

    These kinds of threads are the buildup that lead to CN tension and drama. If ex-\m/ or GOONS want to bring up grievances, then let them.

    I do find the OP to be ironic in light of what happened since that time. And the story is always the same - everyone is all friends and will never go to war. Ever. And yet, how many times has the hegemony shattered?

  9. Ah, this wouldn't be the Open World Forum without at least one of these threads.

    Pick an alliance because they're fun rather than how much money they'll give you. Trust me on this one. Go to the forum Ryu posted and look through there.

  10. 12 Grand Global Alliance: 23.55 --> 23.66 (+0.13)

    ---------- Add Line: 11.77 --> 11.91 (+0.13)

    ---------- Drop Line: 11.47 --> 11.61 (+0.13)

    Also in a stunning move, Add and Drop line match GGA's gains, straying from the normal half.

    Even weirder, 23.66 - 23.55 now equals 0.13 rather than 0.11. ;)

  11. So give a few examples. Back up these points. Show me how yours are correct and mine are invalid.

    And frankly I don't give a damn about 'inconsistent elements' of his story, as he has written it. Just as he has written a great many other 'supposedly truthful' pieces on Pacifica. And if any part of it is accurate, than it has most likely been left there because it supports the propaganda of this piece of work.

    I certainly have doubts about the overall conclusion presented, which I've previously stated, but simply dismissing the piece as shallow propaganda like this is outright unreasonable in making a case against it. It seems your issue is more with the author than the work itself, and in any case you've failed to follow your own words and back up your points in making this claim.

×
×
  • Create New...